Liability of the Registry Agency for damage

Article 42 et seq. of the Bulgarian Registration Rules govern the provision of information on registrations, annotations and cancellations; extracts from all register books; uncertified copies of registered or annotated instruments and instruments of cancellation; and certificates confirming the presence or absence of entries.

Article 49 of the Rules expressly makes the Registry Agency liable for damage caused by inaccuracies in the certificates and copies it issues. Providing a search by person or a certificate of the entries on a person’s register record is administrative in nature: the Agency has a statutory duty to issue the document, and doing so is an administrative service within the meaning of paragraph 1, point 2 of the Administration Act, read with Article 21(3) of the Administrative Procedure Code. The Agency is an administrative body attached to the Minister of Justice (Article 2 of its Rules of Organisation). It serves individuals and legal entities and provides services and support for state authorities and the administration. When its staff provide information and certificates under Article 42 et seq. of the Registration Rules, they are therefore performing an administrative function. Liability for damage arising from that function is governed by Article 1 of the Act on State and Municipal Liability for Damage. This approach can be seen in decisions by five-judge panels drawn from the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court resolving disputes over whether the ordinary or administrative courts have jurisdiction over such claims against the Agency. Examples are Order No. 30 of 28.10.2016 in civil case No. 17/2016 before the Supreme Court of Cassation and Order No. 61 of 05.10.2017 in administrative case No. 45/2017 before the Supreme Administrative Court. Order No. 566 of 23.11.2017 in private civil case No. 3899/2017 before the Supreme Court of Cassation takes the same view; Order No. 79 of 06.08.2018 in administrative case No. 30/2018 before the Supreme Administrative Court takes the opposite view. The amendment to Article 28 of the Commercial Register Act (State Gazette No. 105/2016), which introduced Article 28(2), also illustrates the legislature’s understanding of the administrative nature of relations with the Agency as part of the executive and the consequences for compensation claims. It superseded point 7 of Interpretative Decree No. 2/2014 of 19.05.2015 of the joint general assembly of the Civil College of the Supreme Court of Cassation and the First and Second Colleges of the Supreme Administrative Court. That point had been a main basis for decisions reaching the opposite conclusion.

This article is not a legal opinion or advice on a particular situation or person. For legal assistance in a similar case, consult a commercial lawyer.

This article is not a legal opinion or advice on a particular situation or person, and the author makes no claim to cover the subject exhaustively. For legal assistance in a similar case, consult a lawyer.